Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The lesson is not to ignore safety protocols.
Smiler- I guess the way I look at it, is that it is Ratzon HaShem to do business with other Jews. Now, there are heterim when it comes to price and quality which, depending on the situation, it’s perfectly fine to rely on… but one cannot say they are fulfilling ratzon Hashem by not doing business with the Jew. They have their own cheshbonos on at what point to choose quality and price, which is perfectly in line with halacha, and it’s not our place to judge. Those who are machmir and willing to sacrifcie quality and price are almost certainly going lifnei mishuras hadin and fulfillinf ratzon HaShem.
Now, in your case, you aren’t sacrificing the Ratzon HaShem of doing business with Jews for gashmiyus, you are doing it for ruchniyus purposes. Which on the one hand sounds noble, but to me, it sounds a little misplace. Because you are sacrificing the Ratzon HaShem that is actually in the Torah, for a different potential Raton HaShem- not benefitting from a questionable mechira that almost all Rabbonim rely on. So, on the one hand, your chumra is a good one, in a vaccum… and it can seem like a better excuse to not buy from Jews that those who use gashmiyus… but how did you make that cheshbon that the ratzon Hashem of not relying on a sale is more important than the Ratzon Hashem of doing business with and supporting other Jews?
UJM- “Hangout and frum are contradictions to each other. Especially for girls.”
I would think especially for boys. Boys have a chiyuv Talmud Torah. There is no such thing as free time.
But girls, especially if they’re single, should have far more free time than any Ben Torah should. Hanging out with friends in a kosher setting seems enjoyable and appropriate.
It’s also interesting that the Torah doesn’t call the LGBT person a toeivah, it calls the act a toeivah. But when it comes to dishonest business practices, the Torah calls the person himself a toeivah
Avira- I’ll let the mods decide which Rabbonim no longer belong on a Torah forum. It seems like they may disagree with you.
R’ Melamed rules similarly when it comes to Masseh Shabbos. It wouldn’t be a problem of Maaseh Shabbos to benefit from someone doing something that you treat as prohibited, as long as they have a reliable psak that it’s permitted:
“כאשר מי שנוהג כשולחן ערוך או הרמ”א מתארח אצל תימני שנוהג כרמב”ם, מותר לו לאכול מן המרק שהוציא המארח מהמקרר וחיממו. שהואיל והמארח נהג כהלכה על פי מנהגו, מותר לכל יהודי לאכול לכתחילה מתבשילו (עי’ מ”ב שיח, ב).”
“האיסור ליהנות ממלאכה שנעשתה בשבת, הוא רק כשברור שהמעשה אסור, אבל אם נעשה דבר ששנוי במחלוקת, אף שלמעשה נוהגים להורות כדעה המחמירה, מכל מקום בדיעבד, מותר ליהנות מאותה המלאכה. וזאת משום שכל יסוד האיסור ליהנות ממלאכה שנעשתה בשבת הוא מדברי חכמים, ולכן כאשר יש מחלוקת אם המלאכה אסורה, הלכה כמיקל, שספק בדברי חכמים להקל (פמ”ג, מ”ב שיח, ב).
Neville- I definitely understand it. If you rule something is assur, then you can’t give it to someone else even if they think it’s mutar.
I’m just not sure I agree with it. Lifnei iveir is placing a stumbling block in front of a person… convincing them to do something they wouldn’t want to be doing or enabling them to do something they shouldn’t be doing.
For a stam yid, he has the right to follow his rav and posek. Whether the rav or posek will be held accountable if that psak is mistake is not for me to decide, but the stam yid who relies on a legitimate psak by a reliable posek (like R’ Moshe regarding chalav stam or the Rabbonim who allow Heter Mechira) is doing nothing wrong. He doesn’t need to follow your posek, he can and should follow his own posek. So how could it be considered a stumbling block to enable him to do something that he’s allowed to do? Nu, so your Rav says it’s prohibited… but lifnei iver seems to be about the target. It’s not about what’s permissible for you, it’s about what’s permissible for him. And your posek’s ruling isn’t kovea for all of Klal Yisroel.
I find it hard to believe that there would be a grocery store that can afford to do that. Relying on mechras chameitz as an individual is certainly controversial… but a store using it is less problematic because I think that’s what the original institutions was for (I think it was for whiskey sellers) because the loss of destroying all that chameitz would have been overwhelming.
As a follow up, it seems like R’ Melamed rules that it wouldn’t be an issue of lifnei iveir to enable or assist someone in relying on a lenient psak given by a reliable posek
“ויש טוענים, שכשם שאסור לקנות פירות מחשודים על עבודה בשביעית, כדי שלא לסייע לדבר עבירה, כך אסור לקנות מפירות שגודלו במסגרת ‘היתר המכירה’. אולם כיוון שהחקלאים עובדים על פי היתר הרבנים, אין במעשיהם שום עבירה. והטוענים שאסור לסייע להם, מבטלים לגמרי את דברי הרבנים המתירים, ועוברים באיסור חמור של ביזוי תלמידי חכמים ועשיית מחלוקת.”
Hakatan- chalav Yisroel is a chumra in the sense that there are reliable poskim who don’t require it. Unless you don’t consider R’ Moshe a reliable posek. Chumra does not mean unnecessary or even optional. For those Jews who have poskim who are machmir are certainly required min hadin to follow that psak.
But since every frum Jew has a right to rely on their posek, assuming that that poske is reliable, I find it hard to believe that it would be a prohibition of lifnei iveir to assist or even enable a Jew to rely on their psak, even if your posek rules differently.
UJM- Hmm… I wonder if that’s true. At the end of the first perek of Yevamos, it says that even though Beis Shamai declared some keilim as tamei, and Beis Hill declared those same keilim as tahor, they still loaned things to one another. The meforshim explain, it’s because they had mutual respect for each other’s opinions, and Beis Shammai trusted Beis Hillel that BH would never loan BS a kli that BS considered tamei, even if BH themselves found nothing wrong with it (the parallel here is that someone who only eats Chalav Yisroel should be able to trust that their Chalav Stam neighbor would never serve them Chalav stam).
But the meforshim say nothign about the reverse… would BS lend BH a kli that BS considered tamei even if BH considered them tahor? Would BS respect BH enough to allow them to be meikil, and to even be a part of that kula, when they themselves hold it’s a problem? I always assumed that BS would have no problem doing this but I could be wrong.
@fakenews
I never said that the Geulah happened already. That’s what Someday was accusing me of. Mashiach has yet to arrive, the Beis HaMikdash has not been rebuilt, and a secular government is in control of Eretz Yisroel.But the current situation may very well be the beginning of the Geulah. After all, kibutz galuyos, the return of Klal Yisroel to Eretz Yisroel, is an integral part of the Geulah. That certainly seems to be happening. Granted, it’s not happening in a miraculous or supernatural fashion, but do we know for sure that’s how it has to be? The Medina, for all its flaws, has certainly made it easier for Klal Yisroel to return to our land. And we are approaching the point where more than 50% of world Jewry will be in Eretz Yisroel.
Is that a significant step towards the final Geulah? It would seem that it is. Granted, I’m not a navi to know for sure… but if the Jewish people are returning to Eretz Yisroel, then I think the burden of proof would be on those who are denying that this is a fulfillment of Kibutz Galuyos and that this does not constitute a part of the Geulah.
Someday- I don’t recall saying that the geulah happened. I said that through the Medina, physically returning to Eretz Yisroel is now more accessible than it has ever been in the past. That’s just a fact. It’s easier to return to and live in Eretz Yisroel than at any point in history since the churban. How that relates to the final geulah is beyond my paygrade.
Why wait for Mashiach?
There’s a famous joke/story of a man who heard radio reports that there will be a flood in his town but he refused to evacuate because he had faith that God would save him. When the waters started flooding the town, he refused to go in someone’s boat because he had faith that God would save him. When he was stuck on his roof, he kindly refused the helicopter rescue saying that he was confident God would save him. When he died, he asked God why He didn’t save him. God responded- I sent you the news report, the boat, and the helicopter… what else were you waiting for?
We pray multiple times a day for God to return us to Israel. One day, we’ll complain to God that He didn’t take his back, and He may respond, I gave you the Medina with the right of return, I gave you Nefesh B’Nefesh… what exactly were you waiting for? I am not a navi to know for sure that God only intends for us to return to EY when Mashiach reveals himself or through supernatural and miraculous means. Maybe God has already sent us the news report, boat, and helicopter and we’re praying for something that God has already granted us.
Shimon- with all due respect, I do not think that’s the proper understanding of the MB. Why would the MB need to tell us that “if you want to follow the Rama, make sure to do everything that the Rama says to do”? It seems far more likely that his comment is going on the entire suggestion of the Rama, that the option to drink more than usual and then go to sleep is the proper way to fulfill the mitzvah of ad delo yada.
Plus, the MB is quoting the Pri Megadim who is much more explicit. The Pri Megadim first references the Taz who explains the Rama is going like the shitah of R’ Efrayim that the story of the killing of R’ Zeira is the way the Gemara tells us that we shouldn’t get drunk like Rava suggests. The Pri Megadim then quotes the Pri Chadash that one shouldnt drink so much, just a little and then go to sleep. And then the Pri Megadim finishes off וכן ראוי לעשות which is what the MB quoted. So it’s clear that the וכן ראוי לעשות is going on the entire suggestion of the Rama and not the end of it
Ujm- and just to make sure I’m not misunderstood. I’m not against getting drunk on Purim if it’s done safely and responsibly. I do it myself (though I can’t say for sure if it’s my Yetzer Hara or my Yetzer Tov driving me to do so). I’m just trying to point out that making it seem like this is such a one sided issue, that it’s poshut that one should get drunk on Purim, that the Rama is a kula that should be avoided and that getting stone drunk is a proper chumra… Is misleading and not intellectually honest . Poskim as recent and authoritative as the Mishnah Berurah is quite clear that getting stone drunk is not the ideal way to fulfill the mitzvah, and that the Rama is not a kula to be avoided, but the proper way to fulfill the mitzvah.
Ujm- “you are supposed to get stone drunk on Purim”. According to some shitos. According to the Pri Megadim and Mishnah Berurah however, the preferable way to be mekayem the mitzvah is like the suggestion of the Rama- drinking more than usual and going to sleep. According to the Mishnah Berurah, he may consider getting stone drunk on Purim a kula… An excuse to a give on to our base desires of drunkenness in the name of a mitzvah when the ideal way to perform that Mitzvah does not require letting go of ourselves.
Ujm- I agree that it seems like that Shomrim may have jumped the gun. But the mother was genuinely nervous as all it takes is six seconds for an abduction to take place. and she asked the experts. They advised her to call the cops. I don’t think she did anything wrong unless she misrepresented the situation. I’m not sure why Shomrim thought calling the police was the right call here… I’m definitely open to accusing them of making a serious mistake, but it’s hard for me to say that with any kind of confidence without knowing their reasoning.
Is it the issue of mesira? Depends on whether the gedarim of mesira extends to a reasonably just society. I’m not convinced it does… But whether it’s the formally issur of mesira or not, a false accusation is a serious thing.
Ujm- in emergency situations, asking a Rav could potentially waste time and make the sakana even worse. Anyways, most competent Rabbonim would advise the shoel to ask an expert to determine if this is a pikuach nefesh situation and to rely on their advice. Which is exactly what this mother did by reaching out to shomrim first. Does she have to apologize to the innocent man who was accused? Of course. But does that mean she should act differently in the future, I don’t think so. Unless she was dishonest in what she told shomrim or the police, I don’t see that she did anything wrong.
Now, whether shomrim jumped the gun in advising her to call the police is a different question. Clearly in hindsight they were mistaken. But I don’t know the facts on the ground as they do… How don’t percentages or statistics or how a delay in arresting an attempted kidnapper could make it that much more difficult to find him and whether that delay could put more people at risk. Without the benefit of that expert knowledge, I can’t pass judgement on whether they should have acted differently. But, clearly in this specific situation, they were indeed mistaken, and like the mother, should apologize to the wrongly accused.
Ujm- if she thought an attempted kidnapper was on the loose, even if her own son was safe, it certainly is a pikuach nefesh situation. And I appreciate the accusation, but my feelings on mesirah are not solely my own, but based on learning the sugya with my Rav.
Ujm- it’s a debate among the poskim whether mesira applies in a just society like ours. I think there’s a famous Aruch HaShulchan about it (tohoigj there is a debate on whether he actually meant what he wrote). That being said, since there is debate on whether mesira applies nowadays, and the stakes here are pikuach nefesh (as children being abused is no doubt pikuach nefesh and we almost always paskin safely pikuach nefesh lechumra), the issue of mesira when it comes to children safety is not one of particular concern to me.
Anyone falsely accused of horrific crimes is obviously a tragedy. And he should certainly be apologized to. But that being said, our (justified) fear of accusing someone falsely more often than not handcuffs our community from protecting our children and I think we need to change our approach. False accusations are far rarer than children being abused and no one acting to their defense. Unfortunately, it’s very possible that in many of these cases, bending over backwards to make sure our children are safe and secure is the lesser of two evils, even if it means the occasional false accusations.
I’m not convinced that the mother and shomrim did the wrong thing given the circumstances, and just like we have gedarim for so many areas of our lives, not touching minors without the knowledge and consent of their parents is certainly one we should embrace. Though in hindsight, they were indeed wrong, and the innocent party needs to be apologized to… Even if he himself may need to do his own cheshbon hanefesh on the proper way out of the halachic situation of walking between two women next time.
We need to do our best to make sure there are no false accusations… But not the expense of putting innocent and vulnerable children at risk. And if we can’t do both, then our priority should be making a safe environment for our children from the sick and evil people hiding within and without our communities.
Every situation and shaila is different and there is no one cut and dried answer in either direction. Which is why even attitudes like UJM “Being meikel for the reason that it’s easier to be meikel, is inherently worse.” might be inherently flawed as well. We just learned in daf yomi the shitah that a Nazir has to bring a Chatas because even though there is a purpose for some people to being a Nazir, and a Nazir is viewed as being a very holy individual, he has still sinned by withholding from himself some of the pleasures of this word. Sometimes the easy path is the right path, and choosing the more difficult one is not approproiate. Obviously you have to know yourself and be as unbiased as possible, as well as relying on a Rav who you trust to be knowledgeable and yashar, but an unecessary chumra (even in an effort to follow “all the shitos”) which leads to a limitiation of pleasure may also be incorrect.
CA- do the Republicans who denounce left wing extremists also denounce the right wing ones? Usually not.
I researched this topic back in my youth, and I wanted to share my thoughts.
It’s not so clear from the Rambam and S”A that women aren’t allowed to learn Torah Shebal Peh. Even though the S”A says that one who teaches his daughter Torah it’s as if he taught her “tiflus” (tiflus being something negative), the S”A also say that women receive sechar for learning it! Now if the S”A was saying that it is assur, the S”A wouldn’t have said they get a reward for doing it. The S”A just says it can’t be taught to them which I understand to mean that it is not allowed to be imposed on them, however if they learn it by choice, then they receive reward.
One also has to factor in (based on the S”A and the Rama) that a woman does not have a chiyuv to learn Torah which has no practical application, and has a chiyuv to learn Torah that has practical application (halachah, mussar, Tanach [Gemara in Megilah says that the only nevu’os that were recorded were those who’s messages are meant for all generations, therefore Nach is practical], etc…). It’s a positive thing to learn the areas which have no practical application (the S”A says they receive reward), it’s better than wasting time, but it’s not a chiyuv.
Based on this, I think there are 4 criteria that need to be met for women to learn Gemara:
1) They have to want to do it.
2) It has to be for lishmah reasons, not feminist reasons.
3) They need a teacher to guide them in the right way to learn Gemara.
4) It can’t come at the expense of learning those areas of Torah that are a chiyuv for them to learn, but it can only come at the expense of things that are reshus (learning secular subjects, going shopping, etc…).
It’s not so clear from the S”A that women aren’t allowed to learn Torah Shebal Peh. Even though the S”A says that one who teaches his daughter Torah it’s as if he taught her “tiflus” (tiflus being something negative), the S”A also say that women receive sechar for learning it! Now if the S”A was saying that it is assur, the S”A wouldn’t have said they get a reward for doing it. The S”A just says it can’t be taught to them which I understand to mean that it is not allowed to be imposed on them, however if they learn it by choice, then they receive reward.
One also has to factor in (based on the S”A and the Rama) that a woman does not have a chiyuv to learn Torah which has no practical application, and has a chiyuv to learn Torah that has practical application (halachah, mussar, Tanach [Gemara in Megilah says that the only nevu’os that were recorded were those who’s messages are meant for all generations, therefore Nach is practical], etc…). It’s a positive thing to learn the areas which have no practical application (the S”A says they receive reward), it’s better than wasting time, but it’s not a chiyuv.
Based on this, I think there are 4 criteria that need to be met for women to learn Gemara:
1) They have to want to do it.
2) It has to be for lishmah reasons, not feminist reasons.
3) They need a teacher to guide them in the right way to learn Gemara.
4) It can’t come at the expense of learning those areas of Torah that are a chiyuv for them to learn, but it can only come at the expense of things that are reshus (learning secular subjects, going shopping, etc…).
The Mon fell from shamayim.. but Klal Yisroel had to go out to get it. The less of a tzadik you were, the further you had to go to get your portion. We who are even lesser tzadikim have to walk very very far to get our parnassah that God sends from Heaven.
For my children to be taken away from me.
And clowns.
So I guess… for my children to be taken away from me by clowns would be the absolute worst.
Joseph- I’m assuming the rule that women shouldn’t be in the public arena or that they shouldn’t do anything that could distract them from their domestic responsibilities is waived when being the primary family bread-winner in order to enable a husband to learn Torah full time?